|
in reply to Symbolic refs aka. dynamic variables again
Ok. I'm confused. I hope one of the more knowledgable internals monks is able to explain why storing a variable in the symbol table is so much more expensive than in a hash. My gut instinct is that it has something to do with the fact that storing something in the symbol table involves more overhead due to reserving a GLOB or something along those lines, but I just tested it on my box, and it's 3 times the memory for a symbolic ref than it is for a hash value. Is it something along those lines, is the fact that the container is the symbol table instead of an actual "container object" causing perl to do more work that a pedestrian monk such as myself wouldn't usually encounter? Am I at least on the right track? |
Re: Re: Symbolic refs aka. dynamic variables again
by grantm (Parson) on Apr 24, 2003 at 19:57 UTC
|
I'm not going to pretend deep knowledge of Perl internals, but the typeglob structure allocates sufficient space to point to ...
- a scalar value - $foo
- an array value - @foo
- a hash value - %foo
- a subroutine - &foo
- a filehandle - foo
- a format - foo
Whereas each hash key points directly to a scalar value (SV)
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Re: Symbolic refs aka. dynamic variables again
by perrin (Chancellor) on Apr 24, 2003 at 19:46 UTC
|
Well, for one thing, variables in the symbol table are globals. It has long been known that lexically-scoped (my) variables use less memory than globals because they don't have to do as much. | [reply] |
|
